Gandhi was a lawyer (barrister) trained in English tradition. He was treated as 'part of the ruling class' in India. It is only when he reached Africa that he saw his real place among British who he was raised to admire and copy, and the treacherous ways British ruled India. His statement quoted above comes from his transition period.
It is Gandhi the old, not Gandhi the young, who is respected. No one is born a Mahatma. Except may be Jesus :)
Gandhi also mistreated his wife, neglected his children enough to scar them for life, and used emotional blackmail to get what he wanted from the British and the masses. He kept many beliefs a secret from the people which are coming to light of late. I cannot figure out why we admire Gandhi or call him a mahatma? Non-violence? No he used to beat up his wife and encouraged Indians to get beaten up by the British. We did not get independence because of him- it would have happened any way -given that India was becoming a liability to the British.
He is called Mahatma because people called him so. Those people and their children are dead along with him so it is easy to dig-up dirt on him. I read a great quote somewhere - 'nobody becomes a leader without doing questionable things'. I firmly believe it to be true for Gandhi and MLK and Jesus, but that doesn't steal away the fact that he was indeed a great leader of Indians and the whole world looked up to him for non-violence.
Regarding him being a wife-beater, I want to know your sources. I know for a fact that RSS propagates a lot of lies about Gandhi and Nehru family. I firmly believe he practiced non-violence and was NOT a wife-beater, WAS against caste-system, WAS against British rule over India. His secrets that are coming to light now (such as his sexual deviations) are things that were public when he was alive but almost nobody cared, or cared enough to propagate. Today, his legacy is major political problem for India and so it is being dug-up by some, while others want to hide it.
Whether he was responsible of India's independence or not, I don't know if it can be debated after 70 years of the fact. And I don't think one will ever get to the 'facts' by debating on this point. The maximum one can do is to read more and form informed opinions.
On-topic, while I agree that 'you can dig up endless dirt on the successful', the topic here is not the dirt, it is the person himself. Gandhi didn't become Mahatma because he was a 'racist' or 'wife-beater' etc. But Steve Job became successful due in large part to him being an asshole.
It is Gandhi the old, not Gandhi the young, who is respected. No one is born a Mahatma. Except may be Jesus :)